| No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and He will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it ( 1Cor 10.13 ). Cast your burden upon the Lord, and He will sustain you; He will never permit the righteous to be moved ( Ps 55.22 ; cf. 1Pet 5.7 ). Courage The virtue of courage and strength must accompany patience. Only the one who has courage can truly be patient in all things. To be courageous means simply not to be afraid. Many times in the Gospels, Christ speaks of this virtue and commands it to His disciples, In so doing, He follows the Old Testament example. The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? Wait for the Lord; be strong and let your heart take courage; yea, wait for the Lord! (Pss 27.1,14; 31.24). Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear; fear Him who, after He has killed, has the power to cast into bell, yes, I tell you, fear Him! ( Lk 12.32,4–5 ). In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage, I have overcome the world ( Jn 16.33 ). The apostles were utterly courageous, and counseled all men to follow their example. Be vigilant, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong ( 1Cor 16.13 ). Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the whole armor of God that you will be able to stand .?.?. ( Eph 6.10 ). You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus .?.?. Take your share of sufferings as a good soldier of Christ Jesus ( 2Tim 2.1–3 ; cf. Heb 11.32–38). The virtue of courage is expressed not only in times of persecution and suffering, but also in the face of ridicule and disdain. It is expressed as well simply, in the, smallest, most common things of everyday life. In Christ’s parable of the talents, the man with little lost even the little that he had and was cast into out darkness because he failed to use his small gift through lack of courage: “and I was afraid and hid your talent in the ground” ( Mt 25.25–30 ). The person with courage faces all things with strength and lives ever day, in every little thing, with the power of Christ. To be “faithful in little” is a sign of great courage. The saints were eminently courageous in their lives and considered this virtue to be central in the spiritual life. |
| The disciples, taking Jesus too literally (how would Jesus «awaken» Lazarus from death?), appeal to the common observation that sleep helps one recover (11:12). 7593 That he «may recover» (11:12) employs terminology that in John usually indicates the world " s «salvation» (3:17; 5:34; 10:9; 12:47); this language may be significant, even if simply to indicate the inadequacy of their soteriology and the depth of their misunderstanding. 7594 Jesus corrects their misunderstanding by speaking «plainly» (11:14; cf. 16:29; comment on 7:4): he was glad 7595 that he was not there because the sign would deepen their faith (11:15; cf. 2:11; 11:45); the delay would not cause Lazarus " s death (see above) but would intensify the public effect of the sign. 7596 In v. 16 Thomas 7597 ironically understands Jesus correctly: for Jesus to raise Lazarus will cost him his life, and Thomas and the other disciples should (though will not) follow him to the cross. The disciples recognized that Jesus had faced most of his opposition in Judea (11:7–8); 7598 the recent stoning attempt to which they refer would be 10:31–32, with 8not far behind, both in Jerusalem. «Going» (11:7–8, 11, 15–16) is often associated with Jesus» death in the Farewell Discourse (13:3, 33, 36; 14:2–5, 28, 31; 16:5); he calls his disciples to follow (14:31). Thomas is thus more courageous than Jesus» brothers (cf. the second person imperative in 7:3), who did not believe in Jesus (7:5). This is surely a positive illustration; some ancient ethicists debated whether one should obey an order when it seems in the better interests of the order " s giver not to do so, 7599 but Thomas, like some heroic characters in other works, 7600 is determined to follow. But Thomas " s determination proves ironic in this Gospel and for any readers familiar with the gospel tradition: despite Thomas " s apparent willingness to suffer death for the sake of Jesus, Jesus will die alone. 7601 Casual oaths were common in the period, 7602 and widely known Jesus tradition elsewhere indicates that the sense of loyalty faded in the face of the horror of arrest and execution ( Mark 14:20 ). |
| Until the twentieth century, the common authorship of John and 1 John was not questioned; in current scholarship, it is often rejected and can no longer be assumed without argument. Today the state of scholarship is far from unanimous, and a variety of opinions exists; if the authors were different, the Epistles drew on the Gospel, 1017 the Gospel drew on 1 John (less likely), 1018 the writer of 1 John was the beloved disciple on whose testimony the Gospel is based, 1019 or the writer of 1 John was the redactor of the Fourth Gospe1. 1020 Despite the lack of consensus on authorship, however, no serious challenge has been mounted against the documents deriving from the same community or school; they have too much in common for that. Brown interprets 1 John and the secessionists against which it polemicizes as heirs of divergent interpretive traditions of the Gospe1. 1021 This thesis is reasonable, perhaps even probable, but 1 John seems to be far more in harmony with the overall thrust of the Gospel than the secessionists» counter-reading is. That the secessionists may have appealed to elements they could interpret in support of their position should not be construed as proof that the context of the Fourth Gospel supports such an interpretation. Although Brown rightly critiques Käsemann " s view of a naive docetism in the Fourth Gospel, his own proposal that some elements in the Gospel lessen the salvific import of Jesus» public ministry 1022 goes beyond the evidence as wel1. Whereas the Synoptics reserve Jesus» glory for his transfiguration, resurrection, and Parousia, his glory is revealed in John in his earthly ministry (2:11) and his death (12:23–33). 1 John could rightly find in the Fourth Gospel that Jesus» death is not only revelation, but also salvation, as Brown also notes. 1023 Brown may be right that 1 John qualifies the Fourth Gospel, often by simply developing themes present (albeit sometimes implicitly) in the Gospe1. Sometimes this «development» is less than obvious; 1 John is a short document, and one cannot expect it to give equal weight to all the Gospel " s themes. Thus, for example, the suggestion that 1 John qualifies the Gospel in the direction of future eschatology 1024 reads too much into the brief amount of evidence we have; the Gospel contains some future eschatology (e.g., 5:28–29; 6:54), and it is not particularly prominent in 1 John (though in that brief letter it has little competition). 1 John may indeed reject hierarchical authority, 1025 but this need not involve rejecting the authority inherent in the apostolic witness (1 John 4:6). But even where 1 John may qualify the Gospel " s teaching because it confronts a different reading of that teaching, 1026 this does not constitute an argument for different authors. The same author can modify his or her own work on further reflection 1027 or, as would fit the evidence better in this case, qualify it when it has been misunderstood. |
| 31 . The Son therefore is only and true God for this also is assigned to the Son as His sole right. For of no created being can it be accurately said that he is alone. How can he to whom fellowship in creation belongs be separated from the rest, as though he were alone? Thus man is seen to be a rational being amongst all earthly creatures, yet he is not the only rational being; for we know that the heavenly works of God also are rational, we confess that angels and archangels are rational beings. If then the angels are rational, man cannot be said to be the only rational being. 32 . But they say that the sun can be said to be alone, because there is no second sun. But the sun himself has many things in common with the stars, for he travels across the heavens, he is of that ethereal and heavenly substance, he is a creature, and is reckoned amongst all the works of God. He serves God in union with all, blesses Him with all, praises Him with all. 2627 Therefore he cannot accurately be said to be alone, for he is not set apart from the rest. 33 . Wherefore since no created being can be compared with the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Which is alone, not amongst all, but over all (our declaration concerning the Spirit being meanwhile held back); as the Father is said to be the only true God, because He has nothing in common with others; so also is the Son alone the Image of the true God, He alone is the Hand of the Father, He alone is the Virtue and Wisdom of God. 34 . Thus the Son alone does what the Father does; for it is written: “Whatsoever things I do, He doth.” 2628 And since the work of the Father and of the Son is one, it is well said of the Father and the Son, that God worked alone; wherefore also when we speak of the Creator, we own both the Father and the Son. For assuredly when Paul said, “Who served the creature more than the Creator,” 2629 he neither denied the Father to be the Creator, from Whom are all these things, nor yet the Son, through Whom are all things. 2630 |
| This understanding of the Liturgy as independent of the conventions of space and time, however, is not unique to Orthodoxy, but is shared by all those within the liturgical tradition; just as scholasticism is not an exclusive characteristic of the Western thought, but can be observed in both modern and patristic theology. Perhaps here on the “route from the Varangians to the Greeks,” one should seek the proper balance of the Eastern and Western approaches to the theology of the living Body, rather than of a dissected cadaver or a bodiless ghost. I do not claim to have found this golden mean, but it seems promising to apply the symbolism of sacramental bread as a tool in speaking about various disciplines and concepts within systematic theology. Far from presenting this humble attempt as a “theory of everything,” I wish to offer it as one possible bond, the gluten of sorts, capable of facilitating the growth in all “three measures of flour until all of it is leavened” (Matt. 13:33). I shall not insist that these peculiarities are exclusive to Eastern Orthodoxy; indeed, much of the faith is shared by both the Eastern and the Western Churches. Typically, we may speak merely of degrees and foci—not of presence and absence. “ Sermo etiam est de Sanctissimo Sacramento quia ipsum est sacramentum sacramentorum ” ( Catechismus Cath. Eccl. 1330). [iv] Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act III scene 1, the opening line of Hamlet’s soliloquy: “ To be or not to be, that is the question…” [v] From the Greek οσα , which can be loosely translated as “the very being” or “the very essence.” [vi] From the Greek μς , “same” and οσα , “essence, being.” “Homoousios” is usually translated into English as “of the same essence.” [vii] The common English transliteration of this Greek word—“icon”—is the standard theological term. But, perhaps, this adopted word is becoming too common, and its original meaning is being altered in the English language. In this instance, however, the 1982 computing term appears to have an interesting parallel to the theological concept of the icon: a computer icon is a portal through which the “essence” of the computer enters into our dimension by relational (at least in some sense) action. |
| John 5:33 You sent unto John, and he bore witness unto the truth. Yet if Your witness be not true, how sayest Thou, I know that the testimony of John is true, and that he has borne witness to the truth? And do you see (O man) how clear it hence is, that the expression, My witness is not true, was addressed to their secret thoughts? 2. What then, says some one, if John bore witness partially. That the Jews might not assert this, see how He removes this suspicion. For He said not, John testified of Me, but, You first sent to John, and you would not have sent had ye not deemed him trustworthy. Nay, what is more, they had sent not to ask him about Christ, but about himself, and the man whom they deemed trustworthy in what related to himself they would much more deem so in what related to another. For it is, so to speak, the nature of us all not to give so much credit to those who speak of themselves as to those who speak of others; yet him they deemed so trustworthy as not to require even concerning himself any other testimony. For they who were sent said not, What do you say concerning Christ? but, Who are you? What do you say of yourself? So great admiration felt they for the man. Now to all this Christ made allusion by saying, You sent unto John. And on this account the Evangelist has not merely related that they sent, but is exact as to the persons sent that they were Priests and of the Pharisees, not common or abject persons, nor such as might be corrupted or cheated, but men able to understand exactly what he said. John 5:34 But I receive not testimony from man. Why then have You brought forward that of John? His testimony was not the testimony of man, for, says he, He that sent me to baptize with water, He said to me. John 1:33 So that John " s testimony was the testimony of God; for having learned from Him he said what he did. But that none should ask, Whence is it clear that he learned from God? and stop at this, He abundantly silences them by still addressing Himself to their thoughts. For neither was it likely that many would know these things; they had hitherto given heed unto John as to one who spoke of himself, and therefore Christ says, I receive not testimony from man. And that the Jews might not ask, And if You were not about to receive the testimony of man, and by it to strengthen Yourself, why have You brought forward this man " s testimony? see how He corrects this contradiction by what He adds. For after saying, I receive not testimony from man, He has added, |
| John 7:32 The Pharisees heard the people murmuring, and sent servants to take Him. Do you see that the violation of the Sabbath was a mere pretense? And that what most stung them was this murmuring? For here, though they had no fault to find with Him for anything said or done, they desired to take Him because of the multitude. They dared not do it themselves, suspecting danger, but sent their hired servants. Alas! For their tyranny and their madness, or rather, I should say, for their folly. After having often attempted themselves, and not prevailed, they committed the matter to servants, simply satisfying their anger. Yet He had spoken much at the pool John 5 , and they had done nothing of the kind; they sought indeed occasion, but they attempted not, while here they can endure it no longer, when the multitude is about to run to Him. What then says Christ? John 7:33 Yet a little while am I with you. Having power to bow and terrify His hearers, He utters words full of humility. As though He had said, Why are you eager to persecute and kill Me? Wait a little while, and even though you should be eager to keep Me back, I shall not endure it. That no one should (as they did) suppose that the, Yet a little while am I with you, denoted a common death, that no one might suppose this, or that He wrought nothing after death, He added, John 7:34 And where I am, there ye cannot come. Now had He been about to continue in death, they might have gone to Him, for to that place we all depart. His words therefore bent the simpler portion of the multitude, terrified the bolder, made the more intelligent anxious to hear Him, since but little time was now left, and since it was not in their power always to enjoy this teaching. Nor did He merely say, I am here, but, I am with you, that is, Though you persecute, though ye drive Me away, yet for a little while I shall not cease dispensing what is for your good, saying and recommending the things that relate to your salvation. John 7:33 And I go unto Him that sent Me. |
| Following the OT designation of Abraham as God " s friend (Isa 41:8; 2 Chr 20:7), early Jewish literature especially applies the title to Abraham. 9083 This is especially because of his intimate relationship with God, so that God could take Abraham into his confidence, not treating him as a servant (cf. John 15:15 ): For wisdom is rather God " s friend than His servant. And therefore He says plainly of Abraham, «shall I hide anything from Abraham my friend?» (Gen. xviii.17). 9084 Or it is because of his obedience to God instead of his own spirit " s will (cf. John 15:14 )? 9085 It would not at all be unnatural, therefore, if John 15:13–15 were making an allusion to Abraham, 9086 particularly given the emphasis on election in 15:16. But another OT allusion is also possible, one that perhaps was more prominent to early readers of the OT because it was in the Torah proper. In Exod 33:11, Moses is the friend of God; this becomes the basis on which he can appeal to God for a revelation of his glory. This designation also appears in early Jewish texts; 9087 it is the most common usage in Tannaitic parables (though not by a large margin). 9088 This allusion becomes likely in John 15because in 1:14–18 the disciples are compared to a new Moses to whom God revealed his glory in Jesus, the embodiment of Torah in flesh (cf. 2Cor 3 ). 9089 Although Jesus fills the role of God here, friendship with Jesus would also bring one into a welcome relationship with the Father. Individuals» friendships provided ties, whenever feasible, between households. 9090 2E. Friends, Not Servants (15:15) The earlier contrast between servants and children ( John 8:33–35 ; cf. Gal 4:7 ) is here supplemented with a contrast between friends and servants. The contrast was familiar enough in Mediterranean antiquity; a Roman, for example, could describe conquered people as «slaves» but allies as «friends» (Sallust Jug. 102.6). Under Jewish law, a slave could not inherit, no matter how many goods were left to him, unless the will freed the slave or granted him «all» his master " s goods (including himself; m. Pêah 3:8). There would be no point in Jesus promising to share his words or goods with the disciples unless they were friends and not slaves. The image especially involves what Jesus entrusts the disciples with, as he states in 15:15; as noted above, one difference between servant-master relationships and those between friends is that servants withhold secrets from the master but friends do not withhold them from each other. 9091 |
| One third of the population of Finland now believes in the Christian God, in a sign that the country is bucking the trend of declining faith. A new survey finds that after years of steady decline, in common with many other countries in the West, Christian belief in Finland is once more increasing. Four years ago, just 27 per cent of Finns said they believed in the God of Christianity, Evangelical Focus reports . Now, that figure stands at 33 per cent. A further 19 per cent of Finns said they believe in God, although this is a different God to that taught by the churches. More than one in ten do not know whether they believe in God or not. The number of atheists also increased, from 21 per cent to 23 per cent. The survey, Partaking Lutheranism, was carried out by Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland’s research institute . Nearly three-quarters of Finns belong to the Lutheran Church, one of two national churches of Finland. The other, smaller national church is the Finnish Orthodox Church. “People are thinking about their relationship to the Church. It looks like the opinions have got stronger. The number of those, who are in the middle, who are unsure or who believe differently than the Church teaches, has decreased,” said researcher Kimmo Ketola, according to Evangelical Focus. The report has been produced to help the Church and individual parishes plan their mission strategies over the next few decades. It examines the wider role of faith in society and cultural changes affecting Finland, to help guide clergy about what their priorities should be. In the preface, the document says the last decade has seen momentous changes of a kind few people predicted. It mentions the global economic crisis, growing inequality, right-wing populism, the refugee crisis and a growth also in the global political influence of religion. For Finland, the Russian-Ukrainian crisis and the economic sanctions imposed by the UN in Russia as a result of the takeover of the Crimea have all contributed to a sense “that Europe will never be the same again”. |
| A favourite phrase from the American Declaration of Independence tells us that one of our inalienable human rights is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This legitimate political goal has morphed into a personal philosophy, and now the notion is so ingrained in western culture that it is common to both liberals and conservatives, to both those in the right wing and in the left wing. This philosophy says that the ultimate goal of life is to have the freedom to do what we want and to have enough money to buy the lifestyle we desire. How much the State should be involved in the attaining of this goal is debated among those of the right wing and the left wing, but the legitimacy of the goal is presupposed by all. (Or, as one wag pointed out, the right wing and the left wing are both found on the same bird.) True Christianity will have none of this. Our goal is found not in the American Declaration of Independence, but in the Gospel of Matthew, for there Jesus told us to “seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33). Christians therefore seek not happiness, but God’s Kingdom. Happiness and blessedness and the possession of what we truly need (which rarely coincides with what we think we need) come as a by-product of this continual striving for righteousness. Striving for righteousness and against sin is an uphill battle, as anyone can tell you who has attempted it. Within each of us lies a silent traitor, a kind of fifth columnist, ever waiting to wreck our good intentions and drag us back to the filth and mess from which we emerged when we became disciples of Jesus. St. Paul gave us the classic formulation of this interior self-betrayal: “I do not understand my own actions, for I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Romans 7:15). Paul calls this inner compulsion “the old man” or the old self, contrasting it with the new man and new self we receive through the new birth at holy baptism. The old self always exerts a tug upon us whenever we decide to strive for righteousness and pursue new virtue. |
|
|
